Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Michael Pierce Jersey .ca! Hi Kerry, During the Winnipeg Jets power play in the third period against the Calgary Flames last night, Lance Bouma ran into Dustin Byfuglien and then ended up with the puck on his stick and in the net. To me it seemed like a pick play. Is that even allowed? Should interference not have been called on the play? What happened there? If the penalty would have been called, it would of been a 5-on-3 for the Jets with a 2-2 score, instead it was 3-2 Flames. I am sure the outcome of the came would of been quite different. Regards,Reg Robert --- Good day Kerry, Watching the Calgary vs. Jets Game - on Calgarys third goal there was a clear obstruction interference on Dustin Byfuglien with Lance Bouma plowing through him and eliminating Byfuglien from the play. Bouma proceeded to the open ice taking a pass from Matt Stajan and scoring a goal. I would like to know why this isnt interference? Byfuglien never had possession of the puck! If you could kindly clarify? Thanks! Luke Guthro Reg and Luke: Lance Bouma clearly eliminated Dustin Byfuglien with illegal body contact that directly resulted in Bouma scoring a short-handed goal. Bouma should have been assessed an interference penalty negating any opportunity to score on the play. The Jets should have then enjoyed a two-man advantage for one minute and forty seconds. A "pick" is defined as the action of a player who checks an opponent who is not in possession of the puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A player delivering a "pick" is one who moves into an opponents path without initially having body position, thereby taking him out of the play. When this is done, an interference penalty shall be assessed. Lance Bouma got away with a text book example of a "moving pick" when he eliminated defender Dustin Byfuglien and then put himself in position to receive a pass from Matt Stajan and slip the puck past Winnipeg goalkeeper Al Montoya. This should have been a routine two-on-two play for Dustin Byfuglien and his power-play defence partner Tobias Enstrom to defend against once Matt Stajan carried the puck out of the Flames end zone with Lance Bouma on his left side. Bouma started cutting through the middle of the ice on a cross-route before Stajan gained the blue line. Rather than find an open seam Lance Bouma created one by skating directly at Byfuglien and delivered solid body contact that eliminated the Jet defenceman from the play. It was next to impossible for Tobias Enstrom to defend against the immediate two-on-one that Bouma created with his illegal contact on Byfuglien. The Flame forward then put himself in perfect position to receive a pass from Matt Stajan at the top of Montoyas crease to score the go-ahead goal. Both referees must share responsibility for picking up (or missing) the interference that Lance Bouma committed given the cross route that Bouma took entering the attacking zone. The illegal body contact Bouma delivered on Byfuglien occurred in close proximity to puck carrier, Matt Stajan. Freeze-frame the action at this moment to better understand the Referees area of coverage that should take place in this moment. The lead referee backing into the zone would have been primarily responsible for action around the puck. The trailing referees primary area of coverage is on all players away from the puck (non-puck carrier) and is required to hustle up ice once the remaining Jet players exit the Flames end zone. Since the Jets were on the power-play there should have been little, if any, need for the trailing ref to delay exiting the Flames zone and hustling up ice to provide coverage and support with Stajan and Bouma on the attack. The area of coverage and focus of attention for both referees should have melted together once Lance Bouma crossed in front of puck carrier Matt Stajan to deliver an illegal pick on Jet defender Dustin Byfuglien. The missed penalty resulted in the short-handed goal scored by Lance Bouma. Sad to say, been there - done that! Breshad Perriman Jersey . "Weve given ourselves now a tougher task," said Carlyle after the Friday practice, the Toronto head coach notably chipper and upbeat throughout. "But the bottom line is we just have to win our share of games [and] not worry about what anybody else is doing. Tony Jefferson Jersey . Will Venable and Ryan Ludwick drove in a run each for the Padres, who have taken six of their last seven contests and clinched their third straight series win after winning the first two in this set. Clayton Richard (4-9) allowed five hits and a pair of runs over seven innings, while fanning five. http://www.ravensjerseyscheapauthentic.com/ravens-benjamin-watson-black-jersey/ . -- All-Pro tight end Jimmy Graham and the New Orleans Saints met Tuesday for arbitration on his contract. LONDON -- Despite a ruling damaging to his already tarnished image, Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone won a multimillion-dollar case at Londons High Court Thursday relating to the sale of F1 in 2005. The case was dismissed but the judge said it had nevertheless been a corrupt deal and questioned Ecclestones honesty. "Even ... making allowances for the lapse of time and Mr Ecclestones age, I am afraid that I find it impossible to regard him as a reliable or truthful witness," judge Guy Newey said. A former F1 shareholder, German media company Constantin Medien, had sued Ecclestone and other defendants for up to $144 million, claiming F1 was undervalued at the time of the sale to investment group CVC Capital Partners. The 83-year-old Ecclestone was accused of entering into a "corrupt agreement" with German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky to facilitate the sale of Formula One Group to a buyer chosen by him. The High Court said the deal was corrupt, but ruled that Constantin Medien did not lose out as a result. "No loss to Constantin has been shown to have been caused by the corrupt arrangement with Dr Gribkowsky," the judge said in his conclusions. "That fact is fatal to the claim." During the trial, which ran from October to December last year, Constantin Mediens lawyers said that payments totalling about 27 million pounds ($45 million) were made to Gribkowsky at the instigation of Ecclestone. Gribkowsky, who was in charge of selling German bank BayernLBs 47-per cent stake in F1 to CVC, hhas already been found guilty of corruption, tax evasion and breach of trust and is serving an 8 1/2-year prison sentence. Tavon Young Jersey. Ecclestone acknowledged during Gribkowskys trial that he made the payment to avoid being reported by the banker to authorities over his tax affairs. "The payments were a bribe. They were made because Mr Ecclestone had entered into a corrupt agreement with Dr Gribkowsky in May 2005 under which Dr Gribkowsky was to be rewarded for facilitating the sale of BLBs shares in the Formula One group to a buyer acceptable to Mr Ecclestone," the judge said. Constantin said it would appeal the decision. "The judge ruled against Constantin essentially on technical grounds -- including extremely complicated questions of German law which is the governing law in the case -- and Constantin will be appealing those findings," said lawyer Keith Oliver, head of commercial fraud litigation at Peters and Peters Solicitors. Ecclestone is also facing trial in Germany. He is charged with bribery and incitement to breach of trust connected with the payment to Gribkowsky. The trial will begin on April 24 and is set to run until Sept. 16. Bribery convictions can result in prison sentences ranging from three months to 10 years in Germany. Ecclestone said earlier this month he is expecting the case to be thrown out before the trial starts. Ecclestone has stepped down as a member of F1s holding company board of directors pending the outcome of the trial but continues running the sport. Cheap NFL JerseysWholesale JerseysWholesale NFL JerseysJerseys From ChinaWholesale NFL JerseysCheap NFL JerseysCheap Jerseys ' ' '